after a wee think the 4th rating looks to be ajusted and top rating is alwys 90

Les

The mail ratings were as follows:-

Little Owl 78

Wayward Lad 52

Fairy King 63

Mr. Kidd 47

VDW's ratings were consistent in this race in that they were +12 to the Mail's ratings....however, this pattern was not repeated in the other races where VDW supplied his own ratings.

It seems to me that VDW's ratings were not class based as The Old Feller's rating was 91 and Little Owl's rating was 90. Different codes I know, but surely Little Owl's rating would have been far superior to a horse in a "scrubber" race on the flat.

Hope this helps.

ha ha ha hope this helps yir kidding only joking thanks a lot

so the grid is ability,consistency,consistency +ability,rating of your choice

I'm not sure how this extract from our spreadsheet will come out here, but hopefully it will be intelligible. For the four March 1981 table races the spreadsheet columns contain for each runner the Mail rating, the Van der Wheil rating to which they seem closer to corresponding, and the difference. In many cases the difference is 12, plus or minus a relatively insignificant 1, but there are obvious exceptions:

Fairy King 63 75 12
Little Owl 78 90 12
Mr Kidd 47 59 12
Wayward Lad 52 64 12

Bobjob 72 84 12
Bregawn 76 83 7
Fair View 68 80 12
King or Country 70 82 12
Sunset Cristo 68 90 22
The Engineer 78 86 8
The Vintner 63 84 21
Tragus 77 85 8

400 Nocte 55 63 8
Acarine 72 84 12
Alltyre 58 70 12
Brandy Bird 44 57 13
Castletown Lad 65 78 13
Easy Fella 67 70 3
Ellen Mavoureen 69 89 20
Fauloon 78 72 -6
Fort Belvedere 75 87 12
Gaye Chance 74 90 16
Go Gently 63 76 13
Gowanloch 73 83 10
Melerek 48 63 15
Run With Pride 77 80 3
Tiebell 66 79 13

Brown Barman 0 n/a
Dalket 50 61 11
Game Laddie 68 79 11
Greenways 76 85 9
Kenlis 73 88 15
Magic Tipp 78 86 8
Master Brutus 68 80 12
Silberto 59 72 13
Turk 72 83 11

ps

Having now seen the way the extract comes out, there is no matrix but the numbers are all right. If there is a way of posting the material in a table and any member can tell me how, I'll gladly post it again in clearer form.

so we have to find out what sunset cristo did or was going for it in its race to give it ten more points than the average,think it will have to do with class in which they ran,the course they ran on ect

Just a suggestion guys, perhaps time would be better employed searching for reasons as to why certain top rates (no mater what your rating method is) fail to win.As way of an example is it not a contradiction in terms stating that Beacon Light was not out of form prior to the Erin just that his form was not good enough to win it - then concedeing that he was top on every known form rating on the day of the race?.

i take it then that vdw uses add ons or subtractions to formcast as his 4th rating and ability lto for 3rd rating from then on in?

the majorreason as to why a horse like beacon light gets beaten is distance though i dont know in this case[2]going[3]weight given to certain rivals[4]can it give its best on course type

quote:

As way of an example is it not a contradiction in terms stating that Beacon Light was not out of form prior to the Erin just that his form was not good enough to win it - then concedeing that he was top on every known form rating on the day of the race?.

Walter,

I can't see the contradiction, all I can see is VDW used a different formula when compiling his ratings. PK had the best form of the CONSISTENT horses in the Erin. Most if not all rating compilers put more emphasis on recent form, did VDW, I don't think so? If the rating where based only on RECENT form I think VDW would have agreed BL was the best horse in the race. So instead of wasting time trying to work out why top rated (by others) fail wouldn't it be more profitable to work out how VDW worked?

For what its worth I think VDW explained why many other ratings fail. The ability isn't judged/based on class, even if it is the other element of the formula CAPABILTY is very often ignored.

Be Lucky

Les

I think that the partial correspondence between one of Van der Wheil's ratings and the Mail ones suggests he might have used the latter as his base. As yet I have no idea about Van der Wheil's other set, but (in the pre home computer age) it would have been quite a task to compile one's own ratings from scratch, so maybe he used Timeform or Haig ratings as the base. Still, until someone identifies precisely how either set was compiled, its all speculation.

hi folks
VDW book by alan coldrick
VDW declared he used two ratings sporting life and daily mail, but only used them as examples
good luck

george could the difference in rating be class movement from lto just a thought? ie those going from same class to same class 12 extra points subtract if moving up add if moving down

This message has been edited. Last edited by: les henderson,

quote:

If the rating where based only on RECENT form I think VDW would have agreed BL was the best horse in the race. So instead of wasting time trying to work out why top rated (by others) fail wouldn't it be more profitable to work out how VDW worked?

Mtoto it was only a suggestion - however if i remember correctly vdw Himself had Beacon Light (Equal Top Rated) on one of his 2 ratings and he was discared failing on a second rate. There is a piece in his writings that begins along the lines of (Many people seem to think that discovering my 2 methods of rating will provide the answers i can tell them this is not so).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: walter pigeon,

Walter,

VDW said BL was well out of it on both sets of ratings. I think perhaps this is the paragraph you are refering to.............He states that he was confident of discovering my methods of rating which, I understand, he feels is the answer to his problem. This is not so and I have previously suggested that although ratings have a value they are not the 'be-all and end-all' but should be treated as a guide.

All I think VDW is saying here is finding the top rated horse(s) isn't enough. Ratings can't be taken at face value, and the rest of the formula needs to be applied before a selection can be made. However there is no doubt using the same ratings as VDW would be a great help.

Be Lucky

Do you think trying to find out how he worked is a worthwhile exercise now though mtoto given what you guys found out about him on the vdw private forum with his integrity being in question n` that?. Bit of a futile exercise now is it not?,or are you prepared to believe some of his stuff and not other`s.I mean how does one differenciate between which parts of his work to believe or not to believe now?.

Bit of a futile exercise now is it not?,or are you prepared to believe some of his stuff and not other`s.

Walter,

There have always been bits/parts of the literature I have had serious doubts about. So finding out VDW wasn't a rich Dutchman, and perhaps a figment of someones imagination played up to sell books doesn't bother me. The fact that ALL the lessons shown in the early examples and then explained in more detail in a booklet written by him (hopefully without any input from Mr Peach) does more than enough to comfirm the worth of the ideas.

I think you will find if you read back through my posts on here, I have said many times (and long before the revalations about VDW) the early examples, one later example, and SB explains all that needs to known about the true VDW thinking. You will also find I wrote to the RFU saying I think SIAO should have been titled VDW For Dummies. I think it was written to promote the Ability Rating and I think that rating came about to pacify Mr Peach (and the general public) because VDW wouldn't explain the ability rating he used.

So yes I do believe it is well worth while trying to find out how the man worked. I also believe he was years ahead of his time, and the ideas he used, and tried to explain still work today. However it doesn't mean I believe EVERYTHING that has been written.

Be Lucky

Hi lads
have to say the past few days this thread has been a very enjoyable read, there's been no slaging and none of this i no something that you do'nt no crap , just straight talking thanks again lads.

No one is suggesting you believed everything vdw wrote mtoto, just which parts of his work you are now prepared to believe / disbelieve given that he has been exposed as a fraud by the private vdw forum?.

As far as I can determine from the literature there were 9 separate methods VDW employed over the years.
1. The 3 most consistent from betting forecast given in Apr 1978.
2. The list of good handicappers with the two form placings in their last two outings in the previous season given in May 1979.
3. The list of 2-y-o's who achieved a minimum SF 70 at min distance 7f at Grade 1 course. This was given in Oct 1981.
4. An unspecified method giving 2 or 3 per week (short prices) from the Sporting Chronicle.
5. An unspecified method giving a couple of dozen all year from the Sporting Chronicle.
6. The 3 most tipped from the races with the highest penalty value again using the Sporting Chronicle.
7. The list of 3-y-o who were placed second or third producing a minimum SF of 75 who were lightly raced as 2-y-o. 4, 5, 6 & 7 were given in Apr 1983.
8. An unspecified Handicap Hurdle method given in Jan 1986.
9. An unspecified method used by his associates based on breeding and training techniques given in May 1987.
I trust I haven't missed any.